Re: [PATCH] Convert filldir[64]() from __put_user() to unsafe_put_user()

From: Al Viro
Date: Sun Oct 13 2019 - 14:13:43 EST

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:31:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So the code actually needs to properly return the error early, or
> initialize the segments that didn't get loaded to 0, or something.
> And when I posted that, Luto said "just get rid of the get_user_ex()
> entirely, instead of changing semantics of the existing ones to be
> sane.
> Which is probably right. There aren't that many.
> I *thought* there were also cases of us doing some questionably things
> inside the get_user_try sections, but those seem to have gotten fixed
> already independently, so it's really just the "make try/catch really
> try/catch" change that needs some editing of our current broken stuff
> that depends on it not actually *catching* exceptions, but on just
> continuing on to the next one.

Umm... TBH, I wonder if we would be better off if restore_sigcontext()
(i.e. sigreturn()/rt_sigreturn()) would flat-out copy_from_user() the
entire[*] struct sigcontext into a local variable and then copied fields
to pt_regs... The thing is small enough for not blowing the stack (256
bytes max. and it's on a shallow stack) and big enough to make "fancy
memcpy + let the compiler think how to combine in-kernel copies"
potentially better than hardwired sequence of 64bit loads/stores...

[*] OK, sans ->reserved part in the very end on 64bit. 192 bytes to

Same for do_sys_vm86(), perhaps - we want regs/flags/cpu_type and
screen_bitmap there, i.e. the beginning of struct vm86plus_struct
and of struct vm86_struct... 24*32bit. IOW, 96-byte memcpy +
gcc-visible field-by-field copying vs. hardwired sequence of
32bit loads (with some 16bit ones thrown in, for extra fun) and
compiler told not to reorder anything.

And these (32bit and 64bit restore_sigcontext() and do_sys_vm86())
are the only get_user_ex() users anywhere...